z-logo
open-access-imgOpen Access
How Would You Like to Die? Glossip v. Gross Deals Blow to Abolitionists
Author(s) -
Brenda I. Rowe
Publication year - 2017
Publication title -
the prison journal
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.524
H-Index - 51
eISSN - 1552-7522
pISSN - 0032-8855
DOI - 10.1177/0032885517743716
Subject(s) - battle , capital punishment , punishment (psychology) , supreme court , context (archaeology) , jurisprudence , criminology , law , supreme court decisions , capital (architecture) , law and economics , business , political science , economics , sociology , psychology , history , social psychology , archaeology
After capital punishment opponents’ pressure on drug suppliers reduced the lethal injection drug supply, Oklahoma began using midazolam, resulting in botched executions. Condemned inmates sought to stop use of this lethal injection protocol. In Glossip v. Gross, the U.S. Supreme Court found inmates failed to establish that such protocols entail a substantial risk of severe pain compared with available alternatives, undermining the supply side attack strategy and leaving inmates facing the possibility of an unnecessarily painful execution. This article places the Glossip decision within the context of method of execution jurisprudence and discusses implications for the ongoing battle over capital punishment.

The content you want is available to Zendy users.

Already have an account? Click here to sign in.
Having issues? You can contact us here
Accelerating Research

Address

John Eccles House
Robert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom